Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

A Google Fiberhood-style rollout in the U.S., says a Goldman-Sachs estimate, would cost in the neighborhood of $140 billion. Even for Israel, a country approximately the size of New Jersey, there's a high pricetag ("billions of shekels") for installing fiber optics dense enough to reach most of the population, but just a massive fiber-optic rollout is planned, with the project led by Swedish firm Viaeuropa. If the scheme succeeds, it will cover two thirds of the country over the next 10 years or so.

Israel has about the population of NYC and it will cost $140 Billion? We are talking $20,000 per person which seems incredibly high, especially when you consider the small amount of land. How can it possibly cost this much?

It doesn't, but why bother at all? Run the fiber to my house so I can hook it to my wireless router? Why not just stick with wireless to begin with? 4G is 100mbps, already faster than the 802.11g most people are using with their wifi router, why would anyone waste billions on fiber when they can just offer 4G? And 10 yrs from now we'll probably all have 5G or 6G, just five years ago in 2007 4G didn't even exist and now we all have 4G cellphones. Landlines are dead, stick with wireless.

How about the ease in taking down a single tower rather than cutting several lines to kill a large populations connectivity.

Wireless is a stupid solution to any problem that involves a stationary target. Its often times short term easy and short term less expensive, but eventually when you have no more spectrum, you're fucked. Welcome to America's current spectrum issue, morons who thought 'lets just make it wireless!' when it doesn't need to be.

Dude, wake up... even the Israeli Prime Minister acknowledges that many current and planned settlements are in violation of internationally-recognized borders, and he openly admits that he doesn't give a rat's ass. When even the puppets running the institution that you are white-knighting for decide that defending their actions is a waste of time, it may be time for you to take up a different hobby.

even the Israeli Prime Minister acknowledges that many current and planned settlements are in violation of internationally-recognized borders,

I don't think there's much debate that many countries don't recognize these territories. Why shouldn't he acknowledge the stated opinions of other countries?

and he openly admits that he doesn't give a rat's ass.

Again, why should he? I don't think it's a newsflash that the countries that attacked Israel and then lost territory [wikipedia.org] are upset about it.Question for you: If Israel had lost territory during the war, would you be clamoring for Jordan, Syria, or Egypt to return it to them?

When even the puppets running the institution that you are white-knighting for decide that defending their actions is a waste of time,

The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields after a period of high tension that included an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank,[11][12] Israeli initiated aerial clashes over Syrian territory,[13] Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli response against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency (initiated by Israel) into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border[14] and culminating in the Egyptian imposition of a naval blockade on Eilat and ordering of the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force.

Translation: the "the other guy started it" defense works, but only as long as it's in Israel's favor. As soon as it works against Israel, it no longer applies. Funny how often that happens...like the "ancestral homeland" argument that applies to the Hebrews but not the Canaanites. Or the "it's been too long" argument, that applies to Palestinians robbed of their land in 1948 (much less 1967), but not when it was Israel going after Swiss Banks for Jewish possessions stolen in the 1930's.

Acquisition of territory by force has happened all through history,
is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen for the forseeable
future. The supposed illegitimacy of this practice is used as a tool
to demonize Israel, but it's completely ignored when anyone else does it.

After the Second World War and the Nurenberg trials, a bunch of international lawyers (many of them Jewish, I'm proud to say) got together and wrote a set of international laws and agreements, including the Geneva conventions, which most countries signed, which would prevent acquisition of territory by force from ever happening again.

So now it violates international law. And Israel is violating international law.

Well, how conveeeenient. We (the USA, Russia, etc.) have grabbed all the territory we need, so now we'll make what we did illegal and grandfather ourselves.

There have certainly been other land grabs since the Geneva conventions (Turkey grabbing northern Cyprus; Russia grabbing Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and yet we don't see the hate-fueled virulent outcry against Turkey and Russia that we see against Israel.

If you want your country to be safe and secure, don't make enemies of everybody in the world.

What's the alternative? If Israel evacuated the West Bank today, it would have rockets landing in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem tomorrow.

There is no solution to the problem. The best Israel can do is keep a lid on the violence and make sure it only proceeds at a low-level. Eventually, it may find a real peace partner in the Palestinians. But I'm not optimistic. Even the "moderate" Palestinians say very different things in Arabic to their own constituency compared to what they say in English for the international community.

Easy to say if you live in the US or Canada. Not so easy if you live in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

it is no reason for the israeli government to continue with provocative policies like building new settlements.

I happen to agree. The Israeli government is astoundingly stupid and is compounding Israel's bad PR and international ill-will. Nevertheless, it's one thing to stop building settlements and quite another to withdraw from the West Bank or to e

Say it with me now, the CANAANITES ARE THE NATIVES. History AND Archeology both prove this.

Funny how you "ancestral homeland" guys leave that part out of the storyline. If the Palestinians had to GTFO because the Jews lived there 2,000 years ago, then the Israelis can GTFO for the descendants of the Canaanites from 3,000 years ago.

After the Second World War and the Nurenberg trials, a bunch of international lawyers (many of them Jewish, I'm proud to say) got together and wrote a set of international laws and agreements, including the Geneva conventions, which most countries signed, which would prevent acquisition of territory by force from ever happening again.

Just curious- does it specify any difference if the target of the attack manages to take land from the attacker (as in the case discussed here) vs the attacker taking land from the target? IANAL.

So now it violates international law. And Israel is violating international law.

What Israel's right-wing government is doing also violates basic intelligence. If you want your country to be safe and secure, don't make enemies of everybody in the world.

I think Israel's Arab neighbors disliked it well before Israel claimed this territory, and would continue to do so even if it was returned. Their dislike seems to stem from Israel existing in the first place. Israel seems to have fairly normal relations with the majority of countries in the world. Also, safety a

If you read that passage from Wikipedia that I posted, you'll see that Israel wasn't attacked by its neighbors. Israel attacked.

I'm not a lawyer. Theodor Meron is. He was the Israeli government's top international lawyer in 1967. The prime minister of Israel asked him whether it would be legal to occupy the territories, and he said it would be illegal. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I studied German (and European) history. Zionism had its origins in 19th century German nationalism. The same movement t

Acquisition of territory by force has happened all through history,
is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen for the forseeable
future. The supposed illegitimacy of this practice is used as a tool
to demonize Israel, but it's completely ignored when anyone else does it.

Why stop there.

The Jews would have to give Israel back to the British, who would have to give it back to the Ottomans who would have to give it back to the Arabs, who'd have to swap it with the Europeans for a while until they have to give it back to the Romans who would have to give it back to the Greeks who would have to give it back to the Egyptians who'd have to give it back to the Jews.

Your nonsense. All of your examples are from before the end of WWII, before the fourth Geneva conventions, and some territory disputes from long gone empires (Prussia and Ottomans). Not one apples-to-apples modern comparison of Israel's 1967 land grab, following a war it started with a sneak attack on Egypt.

The USA would have to give back a large chunk of territory to Mexico.

And if this were the year 1912 (64 years past the concession), you'd have a great point. But we're a hundred years past tha

I want to see Israel coexist in peace with Palestine, but these days it is Israel who are the abusive partner in that relationship.

These days? It's always been that way, since before Israel was "recognized" by the U.N. Most of the Jews in Palestine in 1948 were either immigrants or first generation children of immigrants. Israel was "created" by taking land from the majority native population, and giving it to a minority via land theft and conquest.

Because nearly every nation in the world soundly denounces their actions as "illegal" and "infringing upon internationally-recognized borders". Here's about eight pages of citations: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+illegal+settlements&tbm=nws.

Play semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the facts: they know what they are doing is wrong, and they don't care, so why do you give a crap when somebody calls them on it?

Here's a video showing how the United Nations is now acting in a way contrary to its founding principles. This is because the Organization of Islamic Countries and Non-Alignment movement have created a voting bloc. This is why there are bogus resolutions in the UN where criticism of religion (eg. the iron-age barbaric death cult of Islam; read the Qur'an and hadiths, they are true hate speech!) is equivalent to hate speech. Then we have the ITU grasp of the Internet for the purposes of censorship. Here's t

Why should I bother? You're just quoting youtube videos. Occupation of Iraq : about 1 million dead. This is quite known. Stealing water and wiping your ass with the 4th Geneva Convention? That's just your state running a military occupation but colonizing the territory, and it's still an occupation if you don't annex it.

Because you are full of shit and can't prove your assertions? The most reliable figure is the classified figure of civilian deaths is 66,081 civilians killed (leaked by Wikileaks). Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]
That makes you wrong by a factor of 15 (as in, your assertion is delusional).

Now if we look at a possible figure that could work for your argument (I'm trying to make your case for you, since you could ) then we have the multi-sigma outlier value of 1.2-1.4 mill

I call bullshit. Citation required for "millions" dead caused directly by the US.

3 million in Vietnam. Another million in Iraq. Any more dumb questions?

What do you mean by "wiping our ass"?

Need remedial current events much? Bush and then Obama, along with enthusiastic help from Congress and the courts, have been wiping their ass with the Constitution for some time now. Warrantless wiretapping? Indefinite detention? Starting a war in Libya without Congressional authorization?

3 million in Vietnam. Another million in Iraq. Any more dumb questions?

Citation please. Were you unable to read the citation I gave? It is you that has the assertion that my reference already disproved, and have not supplied anything to counter that. So at this point I think that you are being obtuse/dumb.

Note that Vietnam was over forty years ago, was entirely justified against North Vietnamese-Russian-Chinese aggression against a democratic (but yes, very imperfect) state that was conducting self defense as permitted under the relevant United Nations resolution and request

Nice. So, everyone else in the world is wrong except for you and your good buddy the US? Because that's who you just called "piece of shit anti-semite, arab, nazi fuckers." That's indicative of a serious mental condition which you should have checked out at your earliest convenience.

Is everyone who introduces you to the facts "garbage," or does that only apply to people not born into the tribe?

Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank in spite of the Oslo Accords, which specified in article 31 that neither side would take any step that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. However, Israeli settlement expansion has continued unabated.The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories. The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal, and no foreign government supports Israel's settlements.

Actually that's a blockquote. A citation is when you say where you got your info from.

Here's a citation:

A citation is when you say where you got the information from, not when you just put quote tags around it

See what I mean? That's not really a citation... I just put quote tags around my own words.

I suspect you actually copied and pasted that from somewhere instead of making it up yourself, but if you don't cite that source, then it is impossible to tell the difference between sock puppet and actual citation. I see you've been modded up which means people on/. don't really care whether there's a citation

A citation is when you say where you got the information from, not when you just put quote tags around it

See what I mean? That's not really a citation... I just put quote tags around my own words.

Sorry, can't help being pedantic about this. Do you realize that, when you wrote: "I just put quote tags around my own words", you were saying where you got your information from? So, by your definition, your example of something that isn't a citation actually is a citation.

But the quote itself doesn't include the information on where it came from (most of the time - I suppose you could quote someone saying something like "I, Joe Schmoe, fifth President of the Republic of hypothetica, declare, on this 32nd day of Smarch, eighteen-elleventy-tweenth in this keynote speech of the 3rd International Conclave of Anorak-Wearing Pedants, that I am not a crook!"), otherwise it wouldn't be a quote. The information on where it came from is generally provided right after the quote, making

The entire international community, including the U.S., the U.N., and the International Court of Justice, consider the settlements to be illegal.

Not only that, but Theodor Meron, the legal counsel of Israel's own Foreign Ministry in September 1967, said so. The Prime Minister’s Office asked him for his opinion on the legality of civilian settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He wrote that it was clearly illegal: “civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit

If you own a chunk of farmland, and your government gets into an argument with a neighboring government and loses control of it, that doesn't mean you don't still own your farm. And if the new government wants to let a bunch of ethnically-correct "settlers" go "settle" on your land, they're still thieves.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. I don't care about the Palestinians if they're too weak or stupid to figure out how to take the land back either with themselves, or with the aid of the mighty Muslim ummah.

So you are actively encouraging the Palestinians to take up violence against Israel! Interesting position...

NB: If Israel wants to take possession of the West Bank, they need to give full citizenship rights to all of the Palestinians, otherwise they are not a democratic state but an apartheid regime.

Israel would immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. If the Palesinians don't outnumber them now, they'll easily outbreed them. And then outvote them. Its going to have to be a two state solution.

Actually, the current Israeli PM is expected to explicitly rule out a two-state solution as his running platform as there are elections looming. He ran and won the last election there under the platform of single-handedly destroying the Oslo Accords and preventing a Palestinian state from being formed. I doubt the Israeli electorate are suddenly going to change and decide that, actually, they do believe in democracy or human rights for non-Jews.

Which means, when the borders are all settled, some of the Jews who built settlements in the West bank will find themselves under a Palestinian government.

No I figured it was yet another country getting what they paid for while we get fucked by the corps and end up on the short bus to the info superhighway.

Despite what Wolfram & Hart...err I mean Goldman Sachs says we have actually paid over 200 billion [pbs.org] in the form of massive tax breaks and other incentives to get nationwide fiber over a decade ago, what did we get? A low res Goatse from the ISPs who gave their CEOs bonuses with the money.

Oh please! Stop comparing Romania and other relatively small states against the US. Pull up a map of the world and compare the size of Europe against the size of the US. And yes China and Russia are similar in size to the continental US but the Gobi desert in China and large areas of northern Russia are not exactly loaded with people needing an Internet connection. The government and businesses have already sunk a shitload of money into the existing system. An existing system that has, for better or worse,

Yes, we are bigger than Romania. We also have more money than they, per capita, and more people. Your point is puzzling; we aren't trying to do the same with the same amount of money. Resources scale with population and wealth. If what you said somehow made sense, we'd have no highways or electrical power outside of the cities.

You did't address the fact that the ISPs and telcos were given tens of billions in tax breaks in the last fifteen years to build the networks they now say they cannot afford to build.

Oh please! Stop comparing Romania and other relatively small states against the US. Pull up a map of the world and compare the size of Europe against the size of the US.

Please, leave off the "but Amurica is ruuural" argument that was weak sauce a decade ago. It doesn't explain why Norway has better access with a lower population density than the United States. It might explain why you get shitty access in Jerkwater, Wyoming, but then how do you explain the shitty access in New York City and San Francisco

Here in Uruguay we are rolling out fiber optics for the entire country (3.5 million people approx.), with about 240,000 connections by now, and connections for all populated centers of 3500 homes and above by 2015. Price tag is about U$S 550 million. I think the plan is to replace the entire copper infrastructure in a few years. Each country is different, but in principle it's doable... (Of course we have the advantage of a state monopoly on wired telecommunications. Yes, I do mean advantage.) See http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/236698/fibra-optica-un-plan-estrategico-de-us-550-millones/ [elobservador.com.uy] use Google Translate for the Spanish-impaired.

Here in the US we're going to see a 3rd world status in regards to networking by the end of our lifetimes (that is if it's not already that way yet).

No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality networking have access to it. The expectation that rural areas should get equal connectivity at the same cost as urban areas will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs. But that is not 3rd world status.

Besides, do you really think that fiber is going to be cutting edge by the end of our lifetimes? Maybe if you are old. I personally am holding out hope for cost

Here in the US we're going to see a 3rd world status in regards to networking by the end of our lifetimes (that is if it's not already that way yet).

No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality networking have access to it. The expectation that rural areas should get equal connectivity at the same cost as urban areas will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs. But that is not 3rd world status.

Besides, do you really think that fiber is going to be cutting edge by the end of our lifetimes? Maybe if you are old. I personally am holding out hope for cost-effective neutrino-based wireless communication, where the boundary of urban and rural makes no difference.

HAHAHAHAHAA*gasp*HAHAHAHA
I love this kind of brilliant satire, so close to a Poe. Here, lemme help you:

"No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality healthcare have access to it. The expectation that poor people should get equal access to healthcare at the same level of decent healthcare as rich folk will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs. But that is not 3rd world status.

Here in the US we're going to see a 3rd world status in regards to networking by the end of our lifetimes (that is if it's not already that way yet).

No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality networking have access to it.

You left of "willing and ABLE to pay". So as long as the rich can get top-quality networking the U.S. is golden? The U.S. is 19th in the world in broadband penetration, and 19th in the world in broadband speed. Can a nation compete economically when it is far behind in the core infrastructure of the 21st Century?

The expectation that rural areas should get equal connectivity at the same cost as urban areas will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs.

How dare rural people expect electricity at affordable prices, decent roads like city-folk, mail service, and broadband? Who do the think they are? Real Americans? You would think they were citizens

It would come as no surprise whatsoever if a significant percentage of that bandwidth will be dedicated for security purposes. However, I see nothing wrong with that. Israel is not the USA. She is a homeland to a people whom the world hates because they dare present to humanity (brace yourselves) MORALITY. You know stuff that spoils fun, like no f**king outside marriage (adultery) or before marriage (fornication), not forcing input into an output-only device (homosexual activity). She is not a liberty exper

"She is a homeland to a people whom the world hates because they dare present to humanity (brace yourselves) MORALITY"

The Palestinians? Never thought of it that way before. Thanks. Yeah, they are Semites, ain't they? We should stop being so anti-Semitic...

Waiting for the pre-4000 BC Ebla-ites to stake their claim. After all, they were there before anyone else. Plenty of descendants about, mostly Palestinian, I'd imagine. Prior possession is 100% of the law, ya know. Might be some Neaderthals or Cro-Magnon claimaints, too. There's been people in that once-fertile land for over twelve thousand years. Probably hundreds of thousands. Maybe a half million years, depending on how you define homo sapiens.

The land is a mined-out, farmed-out dessicated near-wasteland of the not-so-real. It's been peopled to death.

" The fiscal year 2013 budget request “includes $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing [FMF] for Israel and $15 million for refugee resettlement. Within the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s FY2013 budget request includes $99.8 million in joint U.S.-Israeli co-development for missile defense.""

"To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance. It is currently the second largest recipient of aid worldwide, with Afghanistan now first."

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: 2012 Congressional Report - Christopher Olver | April 26, 2012....I realize the US trade empire has a vested interest in a friendly outpost in the middle east, but when will Israel be considered strong enough to stop getting what amounts to charity?

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: 2012 Congressional Report - Christopher Olver | April 26, 2012....I realize the US trade empire has a vested interest in a friendly outpost in the middle east, but when will Israel be considered strong enough to stop getting what amounts to charity?

Considering that the Arab Spring is getting hijacked by Islamists who have more in common with Iran ("lsrael should be wiped off the map") than the various dictators they replaced, I'm guessing Israel will find itself even more in the middle of hostile territory now. As for when the US will stop backing them up, they're best buddies. When the UN voted 188-3 to condemn the US trade embargo against Cuba, who were the three? The US, Israel and Palau. Even their usual lapdog the UK wouldn't side with US on that

Actually, I have done my homework and I think that like with most people on here, your ideas about Iran likely are a caricature of reality. An outrageous caricature, to put it mildly . There have been plenty of inflammatory iranian public statements indeed, but they're no big deal. Often they were an attempt to improve iranian standing with an arab target audience, not an iranian audience, and with relative success. Ahmadinejad has done a lot of effort to 'work' the arab audiences. They care about the Pales

If fiber optic networks' #1 enemy is squirrels, imagine what rockets, grenades, and assorted bombs would do to it. Considering the sensitivity and the repair costs, this seems pretty stupid. They even shy away from putting optical fiber in earthquake areas let alone a recurring war zone.

If fiber optic networks' #1 enemy is squirrels, imagine what rockets, grenades, and assorted bombs would do to it. Considering the sensitivity and the repair costs, this seems pretty stupid. They even shy away from putting optical fiber in earthquake areas let alone a recurring war zone.

Israel isn't a war zone. They have skirmishes and rockets launched at their borders but that isn't where the majority of the population lives. No one in the foreseeable future is going to significantly damage their comm network like you suggest.

The rockets that the IDF admits a are psychological, not military, threat? In Israel, you are more likely to die by being hit by a bus than from a quassam rocket. No, not car accidents overall, but accidents involving buses.

And, the greatest barrages in recent years (in between Obama getting (re)elected and being sworn in, funny how that works) have followed an Israeli violation of a cease fire or assassination of Palestinian officials who are busy negotiating a cease-fire.

Yeah, an apartheid state. Greater rights for immigrants fresh off the plane from Russia than for natives who have lived there for 10 generations. Restricted travel. Racial profiling. At the whims of the military. Starving the population, I'm sorry, "putting them on a diet". Holding thousands in jail with little or no charges.

Israel has Palestinians as members of the Knesset

You mean it has Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, not a small distinction. Palestinians l

And here India is thinking that spending $4 billion or so will get it a nationwide fibre network. No wonder what has been done so far doesn't actually work properly. I feel sorry for the people that are going to have to be using this for lack of another choice.

I only bring it up because I've been working with Israelis on my unrelated-to-the-government fibre network in India - and I still can't fathom the amount of money it's going to cost me over the next decade or so to do that, but I'm sure it'll be more

Actually, all of what you wrote is nonsense. Eight villages are to be destroyed next year alone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/palestinian-villages-demolition-idf-hebron [guardian.co.uk]. There's no doubt in anyone's mind, including the Israeli military's, that the Palestinians own the land, and have done since the late 1800s, well before Israel existed, let alone started expanding. That doesn't matter to Israelis, demolishing Palestinians' homes does.

The Guardian is a propaganda mouthpiece for Jihadis - always has been. Your citing the Guardian is like someone during the Cold War citing Pravda to illustrate that everything in the USSR is hunky dory

Obvious deflection is obvious. And lazy. No counter-argument, no citation showing the Guardian's article to be wrong...just ad homs. Because that's all you've got.

Also, all the Pali parties - be it Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP - claim all of Israel as Palestine.

Sixty-five years ago, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) voted to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states and on that same day in 2012 the Palestinians pushed UNGA to resurrect the very state they refused to accept in 1947, simply because it would have meant accepting a Jewish state as well.

Palestinians rejected the proposal for a Jewish state not because it was for Jews, but because it was giving 2/3 of the lan